Tag Archives: Common Law Unfair Competition

Atlas Van Lines sues Atlas Logistic Courier for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

10 Monday Jan 2022

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

January’s first Indiana intellectual property lawsuit involves Atlas Van Lines seeking to again protect its famous “Atlas” brand.

The Plaintiffs, based in Evansville, Indiana, have been transporting goods under the name “Atlas” since 1948. The Atlas family of companies includes more than 430 independent Atlas agencies across the U.S. and Canada, plus authorized partners in 140 countries. 

The Defendant is alleged to have offered freight transport, storage, warehousing, logistics and forwarding services under the fictitious business name “Atlas Logistic Courier.” However, due to various acts of subterfuge, the Plaintiffs have been unable to determine the true identity of the Defendant, thus initially filing against a John Doe. This case will be interesting to follow to see how the Plaintiffs try to figure out the Defendant’s identity.

The Defendant’s website, http://www.atlaslogisticcourier.com, is down as of January 10, so they may already have made the decision to give up and likely disappear.

Stay tuned for updates.

AWGI LLC et al. v. Doe

Case Number: 3:22-cv-00004-RLY-MPB
File Date: January 7, 2022
Plaintiff: AWGI LLC, Atlas Van Lines, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Mark F. Warzecha, Esq. of Widerman Malek, PL
Defendant: John Doe d/b/a Atlas Logistic Courier
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Richard L. Young
Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman

Complaint:

IU Health sues Methodist Sports Medicine to stop use of “Methodist” name

02 Tuesday Nov 2021

Posted by in Branding, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

For nearly 100 years, Methodist Hospital of Indiana has been operated by the plaintiff Methodist Health Group and its predecessors.

In 1990, the defendant in this lawsuit, Thomas A. Brady Sports Medicine Center, P.C., began operating a sports medicine clinic on the Methodist Hospital campus called “Methodist Sports Medicine.” The clinic has now expanded to several locations around Central Indiana.

In 1997, plaintiff IU Health took over operation of Methodist Hospital and gained the exclusive right to use and sublicense the METHODIST trademark.

Jump forward to 2019 and the Defendant has apparently decided to locate a sports medicine clinic on a Franciscan Alliance health care campus, a major competitor of plaintiff IU Health.

As a result, IU Health wants the Defendant to stop using “Methodist” in their name, and the Defendant has apparently refused to comply, hence this lawsuit.

If everything is as it seems in the Complaint (below), I’d expect an eventual rebrand from the Defendant, but it’s interesting that it took a lawsuit for a rebrand to occur. A new home with a new hospital group surely calls for a brand refresh/update? Especially if you’re just a sublicensee of your original name. Either way, things are rarely exactly as a Complaint makes them seem. Stay tuned for the Defendant’s side of the story.

Indiana University Health, Inc et al. v. Thomas A. Brady Sports Medicine Center, P.C.

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02760-JMS-MJD
File Date: November 1, 2021
Plaintiff: Indiana University Health, Inc., Methodist Health Group, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry, Elizabeth A. Charles of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Defendant: Thomas A. Brady Sports Medicine Center, P.C.
Cause: False Designation of Origin, Common Law Unfair Competition, Deception, Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Mark J. Dinsmore

Complaint:

Trademark Infringement Lawsuit filed over Branded IT Training Videos

13 Wednesday Oct 2021

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This is one of those trademark lawsuits that really isn’t about the trademarks. The subject matter is IT training videos, which you’d more typically find as the subject of a copyright lawsuit. As you’ll see, savvy branding of those videos has allowed the Plaintiff to bring this as a trademark lawsuit, with all the accompanying trademark remedies and none of the formal requirements of a copyright lawsuit.

The Plaintiff, ITPro.TV, makes IT training videos. Importantly, the training videos display the Plaintiff’s logo in the bottom left of the screen.

The Defendants, Hope Training Academy and their individual owners, operate a computer-based training academy in Carmel, Indiana that offers various computer certifications to underemployed adults. Allegedly, the Defendants have been showing Plaintiff’s branded training videos without authorization and, to add injury to insult, they also insert their own “Hope Training Academy” logo on the bottom right of the video.

The parties were engaged in seemingly fruitful settlement negotiations as late as August 2021, with the Defendants offering to make a nominal payment of $29.99 per infringing end user, an unacceptably low fee by the Plaintiff’s calculations. The Defendants also represented that they are no longer using the Plaintiff’s videos but those assertions have not been independently verified by the Plaintiff. Presumably the Plaintiff’s patience with the negotiations simply ran out and they now seek the wisdom (and coercive power) of the Court.

Stay tuned for updates.

Edutainment Live, LLC v. Video Game Palooza et al

Case Number: 1:21-cv-02611-JMS-DML
File Date: Monday, October 11, 2021
Plaintiff: Edutainment Live, LLC d/b/a ITPRo. TV
Plaintiff Counsel: Donald E. Lake III of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Defendant: Video Game Palooza d/b/a Hope Training Academy, Richard Barretto, Cara Barretto
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, Federal Unfair Competition, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

RV Manufacturer Sues Competitor For Use of Confusingly Similar Trademarks (Della Terra vs. Terra)

01 Wednesday Sep 2021

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Both parties in this trademark infringement lawsuit are recreational vehicle (“RV”) manufacturers from Indiana. Did you know that Elkhart, Indiana is the RV Capital of the World?

The Plaintiff is Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana. They began using the unregistered DELTA TERRA trademark in connection with recreational vehicles in March 2018. Their “mountain” logo was adopted shortly after in April 2018.

The Defendant is inTech Trailers, another RV manufacturer from the Elkhart region. They allegedly introduced a new line of RVs called “Terra” in November 2020, along with its own mountain design.

The Plaintiff first notified Defendant of its allegedly infringing activities in December 2020 but there has been no cessation of activity. The Complaint (below) asserts that some of Defendant’s leadership has past ties to Plaintiff, so there may be more to this story than meets the eye. However, even judged at face value, the marks do seem similar. Any distinctions in the mountain designs would certainly be blurred and possibly indistinguishable as these RVs roll by you on the highway. Even if understood to be different product lines, a consumer might reasonably think that both “Delta Terra” and “Terra” RVs emanate from the same manufacturer.

The Defendant has been aware of the Plaintiff’s objections since December 2020, so they should be ready to defend their trademarks and will be expected to file an Answer soon. Stay tuned for updates.

Forest River, Inc. v. inTech Trailers, Inc.

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00645-DRL-MGG
File Date: Tuesday, August 31, 2021
Plaintiff: Forest River, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Philip R. Bautista, JoZeff W. Gebolys, Tracy N. Betz, Stephanie A. Kortokrax of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Defendant: inTech Trailers, Inc.
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr

Complaint:

“Bubbles” vs. “Scoops and Sweet Bubbles” for Ice Cream Parlors…are you confused?

26 Thursday Aug 2021

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Since 2004, the Plaintiff has operated an ice cream parlor called “Bubbles” in Michigan City, Indiana. The Plaintiff does not have a registered trademark. Their red, white and blue logo includes several bubbles and an ice cream cone.

In July 16, the Defendant opened a new ice cream parlor called “Scoops & Sweet Bubbles” just 1.5 miles from the Plaintiff’s store. Defendant’s logo is cyan, green and gray, with some abstract shapes and some textual elements describing their products, including bubble tea. It seems clear that “Sweet Bubbles” from Defendant’s name refers to the bubble tea on their latin-flavored menu. The Plaintiff’s menu does not include bubble tea.

The Complaint (below) asserts that Plaintiff first proposed an amicable resolution but was ignored and then overtly rejected. They now seek court intervention.

What do you think? Is Scoops & Sweet Bubbles confusingly similar to Bubbles, particularly considering they are located only 1.5 miles apart? The closest nearby business with “bubbles” in the name is Tiny Bubbles of Chesterton, a car wash 11 miles down the highway.

Stay tuned for updates.

Bubbles Ice Cream Parlor & Pie Shoppe, Inc. v. Scoops & Sweet Bubbles, LLC

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00634
File Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2021
Plaintiff: Bubbles Ice Cream Parlor & Pie Shoppe, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel: Gary E. Hood, Brian Anderson, John Snow of Polsinelli PC
Defendant: Scoops & Sweet Bubbles, LLC
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, Unfair Competition, State Trademark Infringement, Common Law Unfair Competition
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Damon R. Leichty
Referred To: Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.

Complaint: